CAT/C/51/D/429/2010 The existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violation of human rights in a country does not, as such, constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his/her return to that country.5 4.12 The State party submits that the applicant has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of her communication under article 22 of the Convention and that the communication is therefore manifestly unfounded and should be declared inadmissible. 4.13 Should the Committee find the complaint admissible, the State party argues that the complainant has not established that her return to Sri Lanka would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 3 January 2011, the complainant submitted that the information regarding the use of torture in the country of return was the first and most important issue at that stage. She argues that the State party has a duty to collect information about the use of torture. She points out, however, that the State Party in its submission has made a reference to a report issued in July 2010,6 but that the assessment of her case by the authorities took place in 2009 and the final decision was taken by the Refugee Appeals Board in May 2010, two months before the report in question had been issued. She maintains that at the time the decision was taken, systematic, gross, flagrant and mass violations of human rights were taking place in Sri Lanka against Tamils from the north and that the UNHCR guidelines recommended that such individuals not be returned. She submits that the Board’s decision was thus a clear-cut violation of the Convention, since according to UNHCR the risk of torture was too high. She further submits that, even though the situation might have improved after the decision had been taken by the Danish authorities, torture and human rights violations still took place against Tamils from the north and refers to a report by Amnesty International.7 She maintains that if it had followed the UNHCR guidelines, the State party should have granted her protection status in 2009 and should have reassessed her case on an individual basis in 2010. 5.2 The complainant further submits that, according to section 7(1) of the Aliens act, refugee status is granted in cases when an individual had been tortured and risks being subjected to torture in the future. In cases where an applicant has been tortured, but does not risk being tortured in future, the individual may still be granted a residence permit. The complainant further argues that it was the duty of the State party to establish whether she had been subjected to torture in the past, also in order to correctly assess her evidence, because torture victims often have difficulties talking about their experiences and may only talk about these when they feel very secure. She argues that the fact that she recounted the torture which she had suffered only at the interview with the Immigration Service, should not undermine her credibility. She maintains that in that instance she not only informed the authorities that she had been subjected to torture, but showed them scars on her body and demonstrated that she had no teeth in her mouth. She argues that at that point she should 5 6 7 6 decision adopted on 7 November 2006, paras. 7.1 and 7.2; No. 180/2001, F.F.Z. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 30 April 2002, paras. 9 and 10; and No. 143/1999, S.C. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 10 May 2000, paras. 6.4 and 6.6. It also refers to the Committee's general comment No. 1. The State party refers to communications No. 220/2002, R.D. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 2 May 2005, para. 8.2; No. 245/2004, S.S.S. v. Canada, decision adopted on 16 November 2005, para. 8.3; E.R.K. and Y.K. v. Sweden, para. 7.2; and No. 286/2006, M.R.A. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 17 November 2006, para. 7.3. See para. 4.7 above. The complainant referred to the Amnesty International Annual Report 2010, pp. 301 to 303.